Monday, September 22, 2014

Conditional Release from Insanity Civil Commitment Revoked Because Refused to Follow Group Home Rules

First, the
background to this case concerning civil commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
4243.Washington was found not guilty by
reason of insanity at a bench trial in 2009 for the charged offense of robbery
by force and violence (a threat to stab the teller with a non-existent knife in
exchange for $2,711).The district court
committed him to a mental health facility for evaluation and treatment.In 2012, the Bureau of Prisons certified that
Washington had recovered from his mental disease or defect.The district court held a hearing in April
2012 and conditionally released Washington “based on its finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that his release under a regimen of care and treatment
would not pose a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious
damage to the property of another.”One
of the conditions of Washington’s release was that he reside at a group home, and
this condition was an express component of the FMC Butner release plan.

In July
2013, the probation office filed a petition for a warrant for Washington’s
arrest alleging that he violated the condition of residing at the group
home.Testimony at the revocation hearing
established that Washington refused to sign a commitment to follow the group
home’s rules, knowing that his refusal would result in an eviction notice.One letter written by the group home’s
program director that was admitted into evidence indicated that she “supported
Washington’s exploration of less-restrictive housing options.”Another letter indicated that Washington was becoming
more aggressive to others, telling them not to report his breaking of house
rules.

The
probation officer testified that Washington was in compliance with his
medicines, completed his GED, was enrolled in community college, was not
mentally unstable, and had not been involved in any physical assaults or
criminal charges while on conditional release.The probation officer also testified, however, that she believed
Washington tried to physically intimidate her at one point and that—while she
could recommend a transitional home if an appropriate facility could be
found—Washington could not be safely maintained in the community because he was
not willing to follow the rules at any facility.

Based on
this evidence, would you find that Washington “failed to comply with the
prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment,
and that his continued release will create a substantial risk of bodily injury
to another person or serious damage to the property of another”?See §
4243(g).

Well, the
district court did, and the panel affirms “[b]ecause the doctors who crafted
Washington’s release plan included residence in a group home as an express
element, and because the district court’s substantial-risk finding was not
clearly erroneous[.]”The panel tries to
curb what could “appear to lower the bar for re-commitment proceedings insofar
as . . . earlier precedents generally have addressed individuals who refused to
follow their doctors’ advice” by emphasizing that “every substantial-risk
assessment must turn on the unique factual circumstances of each case rather
than on an attempt to compare one individual to another.”

Still, a
record that simply reflects that Washington “was not getting along well with
the people around him” without any professional medical opinion as to any risk
posed by Washington’s release seems a little skim for a judicial “infer[ence]
that his increasingly verbal aggressiveness was a sign of dangerousness, or
even potential illness, rather than a sign of recovery and attendant resurgence
of his desire for autonomy.”Given
district judges’ “awesome responsibility to protect the public and to strike
the difficult balance with individual liberty,” however, the panel does not
disturb the district judge’s order.